WARCOM: basic 40k SURVEY! - discussion

[Medjugorje]

Doctrines are the absolute worst rule in 40k imho, a more perfect example of a stupid, pointless rule that just adds complexity there is not.

crazy... I love them. Thats a unique thing to Marines. Problem I see there is just the superdoctrines are very bad (Raven Guard/BT Index ) to fully OP (White Scars )

 

I hated the start of 8th edition when each army was the same... Boring as hell. Finally we got rules which give us each army character and makes mono - armies better then soup. AND then you complaining?

 

 

I voted for weekly updates. Just because I hate the long time between stupid OP things like Ramshakkle Buggy lists which are so destructive for the hobby.

[Medjugorje]

Stratagems do actually help mitigate spam as well to an extent, which also allows certain units to have a slightly more powerful ability through stratagems as it is limited to one per turn and costs you. 

 

The example that brought this to mind being the Shroud field strat for the Blackstar, it might be oppressive if your opponent had a bunch of them running at once but as is you can spend to keep the most important one stealthed each turn.

thats just change the playstyle of that unit. 

 

Vanguard Vets in the Index for Black Templars for example. 2x10 splitted into 4x5 which were buffed with tons of rules (devout push + canticle hate + fires of devotion + ex. of rage + will of the emperor + crusader helm --> assault doctrine + chapter master rerolls)  made them insane because you were able to hide all of them on obscuring terrain and move across the whole board. 

 

Now after the new codex where they cannot advance and charge the whole codex is seen as not competitive by lot of BT-players. Without such a combo you cannot compete anymore which is totally crazy. And even in times of Index BT wasnt that OP that everybody was complaining. Think about a unit in 3rd to 6th edition wich were able to reroll hit and wound rolls + additional AP + autowounds + average movement 33" - that unit would have been that gamebreaking. 

 

My main point here is that the whole amount of killyness units destroys the game. If your units cannot perform every single round then they are not worth their points. Thats why flyers and units which dont need TLOS are so good at the moment. Before that situation the amount of terrain was increased by factor 2x. So noone realized that the power creep is there already which is not healty.

[Beta galactosidase]

 

Someone used this very useful term on another post, the ones I bolded:

 

The real reason is that if it's been more than a year since you played, you probably can't actually offer any worthwhile, experience-based feedback on the current edition. If I recall correctly, the SM and Cron dexes came out in October of last year- which would mean technically, you might be able to offer feedback on playing with those dexes for a couple of weeks, but beyond that, you're just a rules analyst/ Internet echo chamber junkie/ armchair quarterback.

I decided when I answered that I’d tell them what my experiences are during a game

LOL- this was me!

 

If I recall correctly, the post you quoted was something I put up on Dakka, not B&C.

 

Some context:

 

They guy I was responding to said that GW only wanted feedback from people who play the current edition because " They need to know you'll play the game regardless of how gak it is. They want apologists and drones giving input, not people who actually have standards."

 

This a dude who often writes intelligent critique, but is also excessively negative, and not above the occasional personal attack.

 

I wrote the post with the tone I did because I was responding to his tone. I do not throw around phrases like those you bolded without provocation.

 

They seem odd here, because B&C tends to be my safe space when the negativity of Dakka gets me down.

I think including the whole quote shows that you weren’t calling anyone by those terms. It was helpful to me, a reminder that when someone puts a question like that they usually want an anecdote, and they aren’t asking for hypotheticals. So I told them that sometimes when I finish a game, such and such happens

 

The poor kid tabulating the results might be looking for sentences like that.it’s not a lead designer reading these, it’s someone who has to assign each text response a category and record them in a spreadsheet.

[phandaal]

 

 

Also for the comment above. I don't see a problem with someone being a Rules Analyst. It's important to understand the rules. Even the top players make mistakes. 

 

There is not a problem with being a "rules analyst."

 

However, if someone has not done the thing for which Games Workshop would like to receive feedback, they simply cannot offer that feedback.

[Noserenda]

 

Doctrines are the absolute worst rule in 40k imho, a more perfect example of a stupid, pointless rule that just adds complexity there is not.

crazy... I love them. Thats a unique thing to Marines. Problem I see there is just the superdoctrines are very bad (Raven Guard/BT Index ) to fully OP (White Scars )

 

I hated the start of 8th edition when each army was the same... Boring as hell. Finally we got rules which give us each army character and makes mono - armies better then soup. AND then you complaining?

 

Im complaining because it makes them uniquely tedious to play, a rule that affects every weapon and changes unevenly by turn? Thats bad game design. Moreover, if you removed doctrines entirely it would barely impact the playstyle of the army, it doesent inform any choices you make. There is plenty of stuff that makes marines unique, they dont need this junk.

[BLACK BLΠFLY]

Doctrines are one of the best things that happened to SM. If you think it’s complicated well I just don’t know what to tell you. I know a lot of CSM players who’d love to have doctrines.

[Dr. Clock]

 

Im complaining because it makes them uniquely tedious to play, a rule that affects every weapon and changes unevenly by turn? Thats bad game design. Moreover, if you removed doctrines entirely it would barely impact the playstyle of the army, it doesent inform any choices you make. There is plenty of stuff that makes marines unique, they dont need this junk.

 

So, in this context, what is 'good game design' for you?

 

I will certainly agree that there's significant complexity behind the GW choice to layer-on 'progressive faction-wide changes', but SM are by no means the worst offender: that's probably Admech with the weirdness happening between Doctrina Imperatives and Canticles, but Dynastic Codes is up there too.

 

If you prefer a simpler version of the game that doesn't include that level of turn-to-turn change, then I think the game would still work fine more or less, but would you also be asking Drukhari to lose Power From Pain, for instance? That's basically Doctrines for bad elves, but they don't have any choice and it's just a slow stack' of abilities instead of the switching in mid-turns.

 

I think Doctrines also has a positive effect on the army planning in that it actually encourages diverse choices: knowing that you do have some Heavy buffs in turn 1 encourages you to try and get something done on a Heavy alpha-strike shooting phase even if for the most part you're waiting for Tactical or Assault... As far as 'not informing decisions' I think it mostly just has the effect of 'marines lists emphasizing one Doctrine, but not at the expense of all others', because you never know when the opposing list is going to make you glad you brought those few 'blaster' heavies or MSU counter-assault...

 

If you think GW is tuned too high, and your opponents agree, then stripping a bit of gunk off all the factions is a reasonable idea. But in this game it's alot easier to agree to strip things away than to make up 'new homebrew additions' to official stuff... IMO having official rules all be just about equally gunky is a sound objective, and I am mostly pleased with the curreny gunk meta.

 

This all comes up in the question of Stratagems as well: I think the game would still work okay if you just dropped them entirely... But it would be way more boring and likely quite a bit slower (less deadly so more slap fights on Objectives for three turns)... And yet I enjoy using them, and hope they remain a thing.

 

Cheers,

 

The Good Doctor.

[Noserenda]

I dont know what the latest Mechanicus stuff is up to as none of our lot play them, but power from pain shows how that kind of mechanic could actually work, its one reference and applies to everything evenly. Bam one and done.

Doctrines on the other hand take that fairly simple mechanic, but then its not a straight progression up the table and then you have to check the stats for your weapons and modify the appropriate ones on the fly based on turns, inherently having to repeatedly do that calculation as you fire different weapons and then having to repeat the whole affair next turn.

Then a whole swathe of units and stratagems also tweak that mechanic. 

And what do you actually gain from that whole pile of load game design wise? A minor boost to list building complexity (debatably good)  and essentially weakening early games assaults  (Except certain units)  and mid-late game heavy weapons and tanks.

Blech.

Like, special rules arent inherently bad, power from pain is fine, the other three space marine army rules are basically fine, (though they start to stack up) i think you just need to do cost/benefit analysis when writing them in. Oh and there should not be a whole page of special rules for the entire army.

But on a semi separate note, we could do a bunch of game design and strip out the nonsense, orrr we could just play 8th, or Adeptus Titanicus ;) 

[Medjugorje]

 

 

Doctrines are the absolute worst rule in 40k imho, a more perfect example of a stupid, pointless rule that just adds complexity there is not.

crazy... I love them. Thats a unique thing to Marines. Problem I see there is just the superdoctrines are very bad (Raven Guard/BT Index ) to fully OP (White Scars )

 

I hated the start of 8th edition when each army was the same... Boring as hell. Finally we got rules which give us each army character and makes mono - armies better then soup. AND then you complaining?

 

Im complaining because it makes them uniquely tedious to play, a rule that affects every weapon and changes unevenly by turn? Thats bad game design. Moreover, if you removed doctrines entirely it would barely impact the playstyle of the army, it doesent inform any choices you make. There is plenty of stuff that makes marines unique, they dont need this junk.

 

I dont think so. So you have more choices and thats nice. You can choose if you come earlier into melee doctrine or take another unit into one special doctrine. I love that.

 

 

But in gerneral there are different people in the hobby. On the one hand we have people who play at least one time a week and concentrate a lot into lists and concepts and watch the META and are totally interested in each change. 

 

And then we have fungamers who play each half year. For them its not easy when they have to learn the game they want to play.

 

But honestly I think for the last ones - it doesnt matter if there is a FAQ or something else. But for the people who want to play compettive and there are serious problems in the game like at the moment. For this kind of players GW should put out more FAQs and direct problem solvings. 

Edited November 7, 2021 by Medjugorje

[Dark Shepherd]

This is why I think it would be fun to split the matched play (points based) mission pack into regular and tournament

 

Different point scoring systems with a lot less focus on secondaries on regular

 

Hard to garner the community feeling on facebooks comments, but going by twitter the feeling seems the same as on here: power creep, lethality, book bloat, rules overload, designers pet favourites, too many strategems and wombo combos

[Jorin Helm-splitter]

 

 

 

 

Also for the comment above. I don't see a problem with someone being a Rules Analyst. It's important to understand the rules. Even the top players make mistakes.

There is not a problem with being a "rules analyst."

 

However, if someone has not done the thing for which Games Workshop would like to receive feedback, they simply cannot offer that feedback.

For the most part I agree with you but if someone chooses not to play because the game is too complex, or possibly not complex enough they should be able to say so. GW could weigh their responses differently but I think there is value in seeing what they want.

[BLACK BLΠFLY]

If you don’t play ninth is hard to offer good comments.

[Jorin Helm-splitter]

If you don’t play ninth is hard to offer good comments.

They didn't really give us a lot of opportunities to offer comments. There was only one textbook to write in. If you didn't want to play because it was too complicated you'd have largely the same answers as everyone else.

 

Granted I'm jaded and I don't really expect them to look at our essays lol. Really felt like it just wanted our opinions on stratagems.

[phandaal]

 

 

 

 

 

Also for the comment above. I don't see a problem with someone being a Rules Analyst. It's important to understand the rules. Even the top players make mistakes.

There is not a problem with being a "rules analyst."

 

However, if someone has not done the thing for which Games Workshop would like to receive feedback, they simply cannot offer that feedback.

For the most part I agree with you but if someone chooses not to play because the game is too complex, or possibly not complex enough they should be able to say so. GW could weigh their responses differently but I think there is value in seeing what they want.

Yeah, they could have added a question with something like "why have you not played for 2 years" or whatever. This one seemed very focused on the experience of people currently playing the game.

[ThePenitentOne]

 

But on a semi separate note, we could do a bunch of game design and strip out the nonsense, orrr we could just play 8th, or Adeptus Titanicus

 

Actually, you don't have to game design- you just have to not battleforge your army.

 

All purity rules, detachment rules and bespoke strats just disappear.

 

Done.

[Scribe]

I gave the used to play answer, got a bunch of questions, told how I was displeased with pretty much everything in the modern game, how much I made and this.

 

"The last great edition was 5th, you've over complicated the game for years."

[Son of Sacrifice]

Worth pointing out that this is a market research survey being run by a market research company for GW. They are only interested in the very specific opinions of a very specific part of their customer base for this particular survey. That's how market research is conducted.

 

Whinging that your opinions are not wanted is like screaming at the pigeons in Trafalgar Square.

[Captain Idaho]

Key part of the survey I ensured I ticked several times at different sections was how it wasn't an easy game to play, is too complicated and generally not user friendly. Casual gamers just can't easily pick it up and play a game quickly and easily without loads of prep.

 

OK for gamers like me who do things non-stop but my gaming group is dwindling because of the difficulties in learning and retaining the rules on a casual basis.

[Doctor Perils]

Key part of the survey I ensured I ticked several times at different sections was how it wasn't an easy game to play, is too complicated and generally not user friendly. Casual gamers just can't easily pick it up and play a game quickly and easily without loads of prep.

OK for gamers like me who do things non-stop but my gaming group is dwindling because of the difficulties in learning and retaining the rules on a casual basis.

Though that's more due to the faction rules bloat, no?

[Orange Knight]

In some ways I sympathise with GW. I see that people are complaining about rule bloat, a complicated game, etc, but the truth is that the game is only as complex as you chose to make it.

 

An open play game is incredibly simple, and a narrative game can create the playing field of your design. People actively chose to play "matched-play" games with all the latest supplements, but the fact is that it's not necessary to do so.

 

The illusion the community creates is that people aren't all meta chasers, but perhaps the evidence is to the contrary.

 

 

Anyways, I'm generally happy with things in 9th edition with the exception of the mission design, and the gradual and slow roll-out of faction and sub faction codex books.

[phandaal]

That is a bit of a misrepresentation. It should go without saying that if someone has a group that will play by their own version of the rules, these problems mostly will not apply.

 

An army with a bookload of new strategems, auras, and special datasheet rules will have those rules regardless of whether you are playing Open or Matched. And that new model with his playground rules doing a bazillion mortal wounds (exaggeration, of course - it is only a gajillion) will be just as OP in any game mode. Aside from Secondary Objectives, bloat applies across game modes.

 

Yes, people can make up their own rules when they are playing in the garage with their friends... Kind of precludes the main purpose behind playing a defined ruleset, though. The point of buying in to a new game edition is knowing that you will be able to take your models somewhere and find a game with someone expecting the same ruleset as you.

[Orange Knight]

No, I understand that. I'm simply pointing out how the community is happy to complain about any number of things, but unwilling to take ownership of their own gaming experience.

 

Remember that the game of 40k involves an un-written social contract between players to have a good time. There is nothing preventing people from saying no to the use of stratagems, or imposing limits on mortal wounds, etc etc

 

The core rules of 40k are very, very simple. The basic rules of each faction are also pretty straight-forward. We chose how many layers we apply the game, and it seems that people are applying every layer available by choice, and then complaining about it. I'm talking about casual gaming outside of a tournament, to be clear.

[Noserenda]

Thats the long running culture of the game though, something GW has definitely had a hand in, that considers matched play the default way to play the game, something which does have some merit but could really REALLY do with pulling tournament play out as its own thing with the current "matched play" rules and creating a more straightforward matched play for casual/pickup games.

[Orange Knight]

You're right. Even if they created a 4th tier of the game, a step up from matched-play, as you call it: "tournament play" I imagine people will simply move on to that.

 

The community doesn't have the restraint or will to take ownership of their own enjoyment, unfortunately. I think we can be pretty certain of that by observing the last x amount of years.

[Khornestar]

There is a range of priorities and personalities across the spectrum of 40k players.

 

It doesn’t make what you say wrong about players having agency. For me though, I just want to play the :cuss game. Just show up, find an opponent, make the requisite and mostly discrete decisions needed to start the game, and get to playing and rolling ASAP. If we had the ideal version of matched play rules, including a better presentation and whatever else, that’s exactly what they’d help to facilitate. Put another way, it preserves mental bandwidth for things deemed more worthwhile, or saves time. Both are pretty crucial. But then, given, one shouldn’t complain when they can improve the situation with some time and effort, when practical.

 

I think the best gaming experience would likely involve exactly those player-driven changes to the game that GW can’t or won’t make, but that takes time and effort and playing with the same group of like minded people consistently. Wildly imperfect seems good enough, in general, if one doesn’t expect 40k to be a “real” competitive game.

Edited November 10, 2021 by Juggernut